The petitioner is aggrieved of fixation of the building tax
under Section 5 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, by the third
respondent as per the order dated 16.03.2012, whereby the
building complex, which is actually owned by different persons
has been reckoned as a 'single unit' and assessed the same
accordingly, instead of assessment at the hands of different
owners, who constructed the building utilising their own funds
and eligible for the benefit of explanation 2 to Section Section 2

(e) of the Act.

2. The sequence of events is as follows: The building is
situated on the plot having an extent of 1.16 Acres situated in
Sy.No.45 /1 of Manjeri Village and it is a commercial building
complex, named as "City Point". After completion of the
construction, it was assessed as per the relevant provisions of
the Act, vide Ext.P1 assessment order dated 28.10.2003,
directing the owner of the property to satisfy a sum of Rs.
W.P ) . No.11973 OF 2012
2
4,26,600/- towards building tax. On approaching the
Government, the liability was permitted to be satisfied by way of
10 equal monthly installments, as borne by Ext. P2 order dated
27.02.2004, followed by Ext.P3 consequential order. The liability
was cleared by the owner accordingly.

3. Later, the petitioner and 11 others purchased different
portions of the said shopping complex as per different sale deeds
dated 26.05.2008 as borne by Exts. P6 to P16 and they were
enjoying the same with absolute ownership, exclusive possession
and clear and marketable title, also remitting the tax under
different heads. While so, the petitioner and 11 others, who
owned the building as above decided to construct two more
floors over the existing two-storeyed structure and filed a joint
application for building permit. After considering the merits,
permission was granted and the construction was completed on
04.02.2012, whereupon, Ext.P18 occupancy certificate was
issued . Inspite of filing Ext.P23 return by the petitioner, also
pointing out that the building was owned by 12 persons and
necessary returns by all the persons and the necessity to have
separate assessment, the same was simply given a 'go-bye' and
W.P ) . No.11973 OF 2012
3
assessment was finalised at the hands of the petitioner by
passing Ext.P24 order, raising Ext.P25 demand for a sum of
Rs15,46,200/-. Being aggrieved of the course pursued by the
second respondent, though the petitioner has preferred Ext.P27
appeal along with Ext.P28 petition for stay, the petitioner has
been given to understand that the appeal will not be entertained
for want of satisfaction of <th of the demand made as per
Ext.P25 demand notice, which made the petitioner to approach
this Court by filing this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned Spl. Government Pleader (Taxes) as
well on behalf of the respondent.

5. Going by the nature of the pleadings and by virtue of
the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court
ordinarily would not interfere in such cases. But the records
reveal that a huge liability of Rs.15,46,200/- is mulcted upon the
petitioner without any regard to the actual facts and figures,
available on the files of the third respondent. This is more so,
since the building was already assessed, when it was a two-
storeyed structure as per Ext. P1 and the liability was satisfied,
but while fixing the liability, it was wrongly included mulcting
W.P ) . No.11973 OF 2012
4
huge liability upon the shoulders of the petitioner, that too
without assessing the building separately/independently at the
hands of separate persons concerned.

6. The learned Spl. Government Pleader submits that all
the relevant records were not produced before the third
respondent.

7. However after hearing both the sides and after going
through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the
matter requires to be looked into with proper application of mind
by the third respondent, instead of relegating the petitioner to
avail the appellate remedy. In the said circumstance, the
impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of,
directing the third respondent to re-consider the matter afresh,
giving notice to all the owners of the property in question and
after giving an opportunity of hearing to them. It is for the
petitioner and such other persons who are stated as owners of
the building , to furnish all the requisite materials before the 3rd
respondent to establish their separate ownership as to the
factum of contribution of funds for effecting construction, so as to
have the benefit of Explanation 2 to Section 2(e) of the Act, if
W.P ) . No.11973 OF 2012
5
eligible. The proceedings, as above, shall be finalised as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall
produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ
petition before the 3rd respondent for further steps.